Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:



I'd hate to see what would happen if tower tells you that you
have a 40 or 50kt overtake on the traffic you're following, and to
S-turn. Kills your autoland. If you want the realism, you should and
fly the approach and land, and use your instruments when you need them.
Should you get the helmet and can't see them, you would be screwed...
royally.

You can't S-turn at busy airline airports very often.

bdl wrote:


Another case of where simulation doesn't match real life. By giving a
visual approach clearance, separation rules change. A controller can
funnel more airplanes into the approach. Otherwise he can't have more
than one airplane on the approach at the same time.

Depends what you mean by approach. If there is radar and a
non-conflicted missed approach there can be quite a string of aircraft
on the ILS.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Sam Spade writes:


I don't think you understand the aerodynamics of the real world. MSFS
has great scenery but the aircraft and the atmosphere modeling are
terribly wrong in MSFS.


It sounds like you don't fly much in MSFS.

Tell me _exactly_ what's wrong with the aircraft modeling.


Off the top of my head:

The King Air, on autopilot, will not maintain the set vertical speed if
the IAS drops below 120 knots or so. It will nose-dive and crash. Not
so with a real King Air.

Cross winds on autopilot are not handled correctly on an RNAV approach.

Strong winds aloft dramatically affect IAS in a holding pattern, which
is wrong beyond belief.

That is my short list.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Ross writes:


Nope, this was the real multi million $ American Airline simulator in
Ft. Worth Texas at their training center. I do not suspect they you
MSFS.


Sometimes it can be surprising what runs on the back end.

In those $10 million simulators it sure as Hell ain't windows.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Sam Spade writes:


In the context of aviation the purpose of simulation is to faithfully
duplicate the aircraft flight deck, panels and systems, motion, and
outside visual references so that pilot qualification in the simulator
translates into pilot qualification in the aircraft.


No. Simulation reproduces specific aspects of the real world with
specific levels of accuracy and realism. No simulation reproduces
everything perfectly. Some simulators reproduce certain things
perfectly. There is no one size that fits all, nor is it necessary
for all simulators to reproduce everything.

Did I say "perfectly?"

How much Appendix D simulator training and proficiency checks have you had?

Mxsmanic wrote:
TxSrv writes:

All planes, and various propulsion systems, react in the
same way to air density. The program itself could handle
this, needing only some specifics from the model file and
which it does supply for certain things. Whatever. Of the
zillion FS planes out there for download, point me toward a
normally-aspirated, piston aircraft, with certificated HP in
the model file, and which isn't a real hoot when slewed up
into the flight levels.

Since you cannot test the real aircraft that high, you have no way of
knowing whether the simulation is accurate or not.


To all of you R.A.P., R.A.I. and R.A.S. regulars out there that take up for
this little twit please read the above and rethink your position. If you
still think he asks logical questions and makes only reasoned statements
please list you name below.

Mxsmanic wrote:

MSFS includes a glider. I have no glider experience so I cannot
comment on its realism.


POST OF THE MONTH.

On 01/05/07 14:15, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
TxSrv writes:

All planes, and various propulsion systems, react in the
same way to air density. The program itself could handle
this, needing only some specifics from the model file and
which it does supply for certain things. Whatever. Of the
zillion FS planes out there for download, point me toward a
normally-aspirated, piston aircraft, with certificated HP in
the model file, and which isn't a real hoot when slewed up
into the flight levels.

Since you cannot test the real aircraft that high, you have no way of
knowing whether the simulation is accurate or not.


To all of you R.A.P., R.A.I. and R.A.S. regulars out there that take up for
this little twit please read the above and rethink your position. If you
still think he asks logical questions and makes only reasoned statements
please list you name below.




Well, I just laughed when I saw that statement. But, I've seen so may
like that from him that it's just the same old thing.

Still, it's been clear to me for some time that he's not here for
the exchange of information, but to disrupt this board (among other
things) - and he's keeps getting plenty of help ;-\

Sam Spade wrote:
Newps wrote:



Mxsmanic wrote:


Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.




Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.



There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.


Not so. When an engine fails on a multi, a lot of rudder is required.
Skillfully done, the application of a lot of rudder is mandatory to
maintain the desired flight path.




Yep, thus changing the flight path from the centered position.

bdl wrote:




Another case of where simulation doesn't match real life. By giving a
visual approach clearance, separation rules change.

Separation does not change because visual approaches are in use. It
remains the same unless visual separation is used. This is independent
of any type of approach clearance.



A controller can
funnel more airplanes into the approach. Otherwise he can't have more
than one airplane on the approach at the same time.


Not even remotley true. You are mixing and matching rules.